https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78641
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Possibly related to PR 58557.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78641
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78593
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78593
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Nov 30 13:23:17 2016
New Revision: 243020
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243020=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-11-30 Janus Weil <ja...@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=38822
--- Comment #18 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
AFAICS everthing is fixed here. Can we close this PR?
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78395
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63667
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78592
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78592
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Nov 30 09:50:04 2016
New Revision: 243005
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=243005=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-11-30 Janus Weil <ja...@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78592
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78593
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78592
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Known to work
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78573
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78573
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Nov 30 07:25:36 2016
New Revision: 242996
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242996=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-11-30 Janus Weil <ja...@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58904
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #3)
> Draft patch:
Unfortunately this causes several regressions in the testsuite:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/asynchronous_1.f90 -O (test for errors, line 35)
F
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58904
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Draft patch:
Index: gcc/fortran/decl.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/decl.c (revision 242960)
+++ gcc/fortran/decl.c (working copy
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78573
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-invalid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78356
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|WAITING |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58175
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=37336
Bug 37336 depends on bug 58175, which changed state.
Bug 58175 Summary: [OOP] Incorrect warning message on scalar finalizer
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58175
What|Removed |Added
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58175
--- Comment #13 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Nov 29 14:15:29 2016
New Revision: 242960
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242960=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-11-29 Tobias Burnus <bur...@net-b.de>
PR fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78557
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78392
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
As noted by Dominique, the problem here has originally been introduced by
r126826.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78545
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #3)
> > Furthermore the documentation for LTIME should link to the related
> > functions IDATE, ITIME and in particular the F95 standa
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78545
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58175
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61767
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #7)
> This alternative patch fixes the ICE as well:
Unfortunately it causes a few regressions:
FAIL: gfortran.dg/allocate_with_source_14.f03 -O scan-tree-d
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61767
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60853
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60853
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Fri Nov 25 17:22:37 2016
New Revision: 242880
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242880=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-11-25 Janus Weil <ja...@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61767
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #5)
> The most immediate way to fix it is this:
> [...]
> This gets rid of the ICE on the given test case. I will check if it survives
> a full regt
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61767
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
The most immediate way to fix it is this:
Index: gcc/fortran/class.c
===
--- gcc/fortran/class.c (revision 242875)
+++ gcc/fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61767
--- Comment #4 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Here is a slightly less verbose version of the test case which runs into the
same ICE:
module Communicator_Form
implicit none
type :: CommunicatorForm
contains
final :: Finalize
end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78518
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|UNCONFIRMED |NEW
Last reconfirmed
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60853
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66227
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|ASSIGNED|RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66227
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Nov 23 16:46:31 2016
New Revision: 242770
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242770=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-11-23 Janus Weil <ja...@gcc.gnu.org>
Backport from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66227
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Wed Nov 23 16:26:38 2016
New Revision: 242768
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242768=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-11-23 Janus Weil <ja...@gcc.gnu.org>
Backport from
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78492
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
I think what happens is this: After resolving the generic TBP call to the
specific one, we try to generate a polymorphic call, but that fails since the
vtab does not contain an entry for the non
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78492
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Here is a reduced (and slightly modified) version which gives the same ICE:
module types
implicit none
type :: generic_class
contains
procedure, non_overridable
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78492
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78443
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to federico from comment #9)
> I have attached another minimal test to show the compiler's behavior.
> Maybe your fix also fixes this?
Thanks for this new test case, Fe
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78443
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.5
--- Comment #7 from janus
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78443
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Tue Nov 22 16:06:46 2016
New Revision: 242703
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242703=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-11-22 Janus Weil <ja...@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=42112
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=61284
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78443
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||mrestelli at gmail dot com
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78443
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|RESOLVED|ASSIGNED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78443
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |RESOLVED
Resolution
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78443
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Indeed this behavior is a bug.
Looking at the dump generated with -fdump-tree-original, it seems that all
typebound-procedure calls are generated as they should be:
* The three calls in the main
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78443
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78114
--- Comment #11 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
r242664 seems to fix the issue I reported in comment 3/4. Thanks!
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71723
--- Comment #10 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #9)
> [Btw, we possibly also fail to check for the SAVE attribute.]
That guess was wrong. We do have such checks, as this example shows:
subroutine
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78392
--- Comment #8 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #7)
> Likely a duplicate of pr42359.
Agreed.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71723
--- Comment #9 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Walter Spector from comment #8)
> The newer F2008 data pointer initialization stuff is largely in ยง4.5.4.6,
> paragraph 2:
>
> "A pointer variable or componen
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78392
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Dominique d'Humieres from comment #5)
> Related to pr42122?
Don't think so.
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71723
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Walter Spector from comment #6)
> Your test case in Comment #5 is fine - because it is not attempting to
> initialize the pointer at compile time. Initializing a pointer at c
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=71723
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Walter Spector from comment #0)
>
> type(data_t), pointer :: data
> integer, pointer :: idata => data%i
Thinking about it some more, I'm actually not sure why
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78392
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Status|NEW |ASSIGNED
Assignee
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78392
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #2)
> As an alternative to removing the assert, one could possibly prevent SAVEd
> variables in the main PROGRAM from being declared as "static" (wh
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78395
--- Comment #5 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to Chris from comment #4)
> I tried compiling (my original example) on a different box, this one with
> gfortran 6.2.0 obtained from the ubuntu-toolchain-r/test PPA. I got
>
>
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78395
--- Comment #3 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Somewhat reduced test case (without all the abstract stuff):
module types_mod
implicit none
type, public :: t1
integer :: a
contains
procedure :: get_t2
end type
type, public
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78395
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||vehre at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78395
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||diagnostic
Status
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78398
--- Comment #1 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #0)
> 2) We get a warning when an uninitialized variable is used in an assignment,
> but not in a print statement.
This may be related to PR 34721.
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: janus at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Please consider the following example:
subroutine s1
integer :: i,j
j = i ! warning here
print *,i ! none here
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78392
--- Comment #2 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
(In reply to janus from comment #0)
> On trunk, the error looks like this:
>
> internal compiler error: in gfc_trans_auto_array_allocation, at
> fortran/trans-array.c:5979
This line
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=78392
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||ice-on-valid-code
Priority: P3
Component: fortran
Assignee: unassigned at gcc dot gnu.org
Reporter: janus at gcc dot gnu.org
Target Milestone: ---
Consider this short test case:
module mytypes
implicit none
contains
pure integer function get_i ()
get_i = 13
end
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66227
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Known to work||4.5.0
Target Milestone
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=66227
--- Comment #7 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Author: janus
Date: Thu Nov 17 07:52:24 2016
New Revision: 242535
URL: https://gcc.gnu.org/viewcvs?rev=242535=gcc=rev
Log:
2016-11-17 Janus Weil <ja...@gcc.gnu.org>
PR fortran
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=68778
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Keywords||wrong-code
CC
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=69298
--- Comment #6 from janus at gcc dot gnu.org ---
Here is a further reduced test case, based on Dominique's variant in comment
#2, which (I think) runs into the same runtime-segfault when calling
stuff_1d_finaliser ...
module stuff_mod
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=41539
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44131
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44863
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=44864
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=45795
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=49961
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51791
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51207
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.7.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=51943
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=55935
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56929
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=56845
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57145
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57456
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=57922
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58947
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.8.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=58658
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60834
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60255
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.3
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60322
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60550
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.1
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=63553
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
CC||janus at gcc dot gnu.org
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64589
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64674
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=67091
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |6.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=64209
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |5.0
https://gcc.gnu.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=60359
janus at gcc dot gnu.org changed:
What|Removed |Added
Target Milestone|--- |4.9.0
801 - 900 of 3414 matches
Mail list logo
